Of course women should have the vote. It's not the voters who are the problem. It's the dills they vote for.
Feminist Fantasies Bernard Chapin
Historically speaking, tyrannical governments have killed, imprisoned, banished or, at the very least, silenced whoever or whatever opposed them. They never funded ethnic studies departments as a means to advance the cause of their foes or enacted hiring quotas as a means to massage them. Rogue states don’t do those sorts of things and neither would radical feminists if they became our leaders…which is reason enough for why we must fight them.
Feminists have, and continue, to argue that men exclude women at every opportunity. And that our history is replete with examples of this exclusion. The basis of their constant claims of dicrimination stem from this argument as well as implying intent on mens' behalf. This stands in stark contrast to everything men have done over the past century and continue to do.
The truth is that historically the genders have operated in distinct spheres of influence.
Is There Anything Good About Men? - Roy F. Baumeister (Don't be fooled by the title.)
Modern feminism consists, in part, of demands to enable, and even advantage, womens access to what were once predominantly male spheres. Simultaneously they actively work to deny men access to the traditionally female spheres.
If one looks at the areas where feminism has had it's greatest influence since the seventies - family law, abuse and the law, health, reproductive rights etc - it is notable that they consistantly run closed shops. Services, advocacy and outreach are not only run almost exclusively by women/feminists they are also exclusively FOR women. There are constant demands, often successful, for women-only "spaces", services and businesses while men-only spaces attract outrage and hysteria.
In much that they do feminists are prone to projection or transference. Simply put they have no insight into male thought processes and have only their own upon which to base their theory.Their thinking stems from a distinctly female mindset(feminists are the last folk who would be willing to even try to empathise with men) and they frequently accuse men of behaving in ways that they, as women, are far more inclined toward.
Judge them by their actions. Men have demonstrated for decades a willingness to enable women and even advantage women over their fellow men. Contrarily feminists do everything in their power to limit, or even deny altogether, mens opportunities.
In politics there is a concept refered to as the "slippery slope". Once a particular position or action is legitimised, no matter how wrong or unethical, it will continue and all things stemming from it become possible. It can be seen throughout history where changes in regimes or governments make no difference. The little corruptions will continue under the new regime because the previous one has legitimised them.
In the case of feminism, particularly of the radical variety, there is an almost religious belief that men have consistantly oppressed, disadvantaged and discriminated against women. Make no mistake that, if they gain power, they will act in exactly the way they believe the "patriarchy" has throughout history. They have already demonstrated their willingness to exclude men at every opportunity.
"One of the great trgedies of life is that men love women, women love children, and children love hamsters" - Bettina Arndt - Australian gender commentor
Warren Farrell argues that the man who abuses a woman is, rather than behaving in a typical male fashion, experiencing a complete break from his conditioning. That the default male state, by virtue of both instinct and social conditioning, is one of protectiveness toward women and children. "Don't hit girls". "Don't hurt those weaker than yourself". "Don't fight dirty". Women, by contrast, while normally instinctively protective of their own children have no such instinct or conditioning where men are concerned.
Ester Vilar, in her 1974 book "The Manipulated Man", warned against giving women control of mens welfare. Thus far it appears she may be very well be correct. If radical feminism achieves widespread power they will not only consider their own previous modus operandi appropriate they will also behave in exactly the way they "know" the patriarchy(ie men) to have done.
Ester Vilar, decades ago, and Bernard Chapin today, are quite wise and, possibly, prophetic in the warnings they give.